By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant had been a permanent worker in the plantation named Vadangode Estate. In 1982 the estate was partitioned and the Complainant became a permanent worker in the estate under proprietorship of the 1st Opposite Party. The service was continued in the 1st Opposite Party's Estate in extension of the continuous service from the year when the Complainant had the access to the service. In 2005 the service of the Complainant was terminated on the ground of superannuation. The complainant was not given the retirement benefits by the Opposite Parties at the time of retirement. The request of the Complainant to get the pension benefit was not considered by the Opposite Parties. The application of the Complainant for the benefit of the pension scheme was lately rejected on 04.01.2008 with reason that the Complainant had no continuous service of 10 years. The Complainant joined service in the year 1967 and as a permanent worker the entry of the Complainant was in the year 1972. The service continued till 2005 the Complainant spent considerable amount to get the benefit of the scheme giving applications one after other. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties: To grant monthly pension to the Complainant. To give the pension arrears from March 2005 till this date. To direct the Opposite Parties to give the Complainant the cost of Rs.15,000/-.
2. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the 1st Opposite Party is as follows:- The 1st Opposite Party was a partner in Gokul Plantation and the partnership was dissolved in 1982. The Complainant was in service in the firm of the 1st Opposite Party. The Provident Fund contribution collected from the worker was remitted in time to the 2nd Opposite Party. In 1982 the 2nd Opposite Party filed a complaint against this Opposite Party in Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta No. STC 1345/90 to STC 1366/90 - 22 cases, STC 1372/90 to STC 1400/90 - 29 cases and STC 1401/90 to STC 1444/90 - 43 cases all the cases filed against the Complainant by the 2nd Opposite Party is acquitted on the ground that the firm of the 1st Opposite Party does not come under provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the complainant was set free in those cases. The 1st Opposite Party contribution for the provident fund of the complainant was remitted and if the complaint is entitled for pension benefits this Opposite Party has no objection. The complaint filed is without any reason and more over the 1st Opposite party is a unnecessary party in this case. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. 3. The 2nd Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant was an employee in Gokul Plantation covered under the code KR/KK/2890/20. The Complainant joined service on 09.06.1973 and the plantation ceased to exists on 01.04.1982 on partition. The statutory requirement is not complied by the Complainant after partition of the plantation. The Complainant was in service of the 1st Opposite Party who had not remitted the contribution of the Complainant and other workers on the ground that the strength requirement for provident fund contribution was not there in unit of plantation. The 2nd Opposite Party took action against the M/S Gokul plantation and cases were filed against the 2nd Opposite Party in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Sulthan Bathery cases No. ST 814/1987 to 889/1989 and ST 1/1989 to 24/89. In all the cases the 1st Opposite Party was acquitted on the ground that it was not necessary on the side of the 1st Opposite Party to contribute the share towards provident fund in the deficit of the required strength of workers. The Complainant left the service on 01.04.1982. There was no contributory service of 10 years so as to enable the Complainant for pension. The Employees Pension Scheme 1995 in para 12, 10 years of eligible service is essential for pension. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
4. The points in consideration are:- Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties? Relief and cost.
5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.B1 to B4. Apart from the documentary evidence oral testimony of the Complainant and witness are taken into consideration. The Complainants case is to get pension since she had the service during the period 1972 to 1982. M/S Gokul Plantation was dissolved with effect from 31.03.1982. The letter addressed to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also shows that the firm was dissolved leaving behind only 4 workers in the unit of the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party did not remit Provident Fund contribution of the workers after partition it was why criminal cases were filed against him by the 2nd Opposite Party. It is seen from the documents that the contribution of the Complainant towards Provident Fund was till 1982 the date when the firm was dissolved. The Complainant also admitted that she had received the gratuity of Rs.36,135/- dated 31.03.2006. On perusal of the documents and considering oral testimony, we are in the opinion that the Complainant had been not in 10 years of continuous service and the P.F membership ceased to exist after dissolution of the plantation. Ten years of continuous service and contribution from the employer for that period is required for the minimum pension as per provisions of the act. In such circumstances we find no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties and the points are decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28th April 2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1. Sarasu Complainant. PW2. Muhammed.
Witnesses for the Opposite Parties: OPW1. C. Prabhakaran. Agriculture. Exhibits for the Complainant: A1. Copy of Notice. dt:08.02.2005. A2. Copy of Letter. dt:14.01.2008. A3. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 Subscriber's Annual Statement of Accounts. A4. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 Subscriber's Annual Statement of Account. A5. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 Subscriber's Annual Statement of Account. A6. The Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 Subscriber's Annual Statement of Account. A7. Copy of Letter. A8. Copy of Pass Book. Exhibit for the Opposite Parties: B1. Receipt. dt:31.03.2006. B2. Weekly Cash Receipt & Expenditure Statement 31.03.2006. B3. Copy of Judgment dt:12.3.1991. B4. Letter. dt:29.5.1982.
| 
